Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia

Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Currently the section headed "20 years on" says "Australian academics at a number of Australian universities have published research with conclusions both supportive and unsupportive of the laws" which may be true but doesn't adequately represent the situation with regards to the established medical position on helmet legislation. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has made their support for helmet legislation clear and explicit. http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf I propose adding this information to the "20 years on section" with a brief one sentence summary of their position which I'm happy to have approved in this talk section before it's included. To my mind this would be an essential addition to this article. The RACS are an independent authority who are talking about the issue at a national level. Their position is explicit, unequivocal and clearly stated so can be easily summarised without any of the accompanying editorialising and bloated clarification that blighted this article before it was revised. We should make it clear where the highest medical authority in the country stands on this contentious issue. Dsnmi (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dsnmi I hope you donned your flame retardant suit, I've put mine on ;-)
 * While clearly well meaning, this is going to light a fire - both the pro-law and anti-law camps have reasons to be unhappy with RACS. Reading through the position paper it starts with "Helmet wearing", a historical section which simply reports the case the RACS made when pushing for the law. The next section is about "Other Cyclists Safety Issues" and does not mention bicycle helmets at all. It does however bemoan the lack of general cyclist safety data. The final section "Position" is a series of bullet points in which they reiterate their pre-law stance.
 * So the paper you refer to makes no attempt to argue the law has worked, either based on work undertaken by RACS itself or by others. At this point we must remind ourselves of Hanlon's razor. It is surely reasonable to ask why did not RACS, as professionals pushing for the world's first bicycle helmet law, also push to ensure that suitable data was collected to determine how the law was working? If they had maybe we would not have today's contentious debate. Both the pro-law and anti-law camps have reason to ask this, though they of course would differ over what that data would show! (And I make no argument as to what that might be.)
 * If this paper was simply referenced as "RACS reaffirms its support" then it could be argued that leaves the inference that RACS argues that the law worked, which in this reference they do not. That would raise the ire of one camp, and their response would raise the ire of the other...
 * Noble effort Dsnmi, but its a can of worms. Don't go there. Kiwikiped (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the RACS have opened the can of worms already but we have to deal with it. Not mentioning their position is just as can-of-wormy as mentioning it. The fact is that the RACS have very clearly spoken about the issue that we're addressing and there is no reason to include a reference to their statement in this article. I'm willing to tip the can of worms that the RACS have opened on this page. Do you have any definite objection to including the line ""In 2009 the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons reviewed their position on Mandatory Helmet Laws and recommended they be retained and enforced" in the article?Dsnmi (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies Dsnmi, missed this earlier, I've since followed up below after Tim. Kiwikiped (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see how it looks to provide a clear view but in practice it is not a NPOV, it misleads. Below is just some of the information.

ROAD TRAUMA CYCLING POSITION PAPER

“The Committee had shown that bicyclist casualties sustained head injuries three times more frequently than motorcyclists casualties1.”

And later

“During the 1980’s, McDermott, Lane and Brazenor of the Committee undertook a prospective controlled trial of 1,710 bicyclists casualties wearing and not wearing helmets. This demonstrated that bicyclist casualties wearing Standards Australia Association-approved helmets had a 45% reduction in the frequency of head injury2.”

Both claims stem from Professor McDermott et al work

See http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/eu-bund-laender/eu/velocity/presentations/velocity2007_pp_17c_long_public.pdf

Appendix

B3) McDermott and Klug 1982, "Difference in head injuries of pedal cyclist and motorcyclist casualties in Victoria", reported 73 skull fractures for pedal cyclists compared with 31 for motorcyclists and concluded that pedal cyclists had a significant greater incident of fractured vault of the skull. They were mainly comparing adult motorcyclists (96%) to cyclists aged less 17 years of age (73%). Adult skull stiffness is higher than for children therefore they were not quite comparing like with like. They reported 181 pedal cyclist fatalities compared with 451 for motorcyclists. The travel data available for 1984/5 (about 7 years after their study period) detailed bicyclists spending 114,500 hours per day cycling in Victoria compared with 17,500 hours per day for motorcycling. Relating time of travel to skull fractures shows motorcyclists incur nearly three times that of bicyclists, a factor of 278% and have a fatality rate 16.3 higher than bicyclists and the overall injury rate for motorcyclists was 16.1 times higher. Motorcyclists generally wearing helmets were 16 times more likely to be killed or injured and nearly 3 times more likely to suffer a skull fracture compared with bicyclists who were generally not wearing helmets. With hindsight it was a mistake for McDermott and Klug not to relate injury and death to time spent travelling, making their findings unsuitable for considering overall safety. In addition they reported having no information on the cause of death. Their recommendation for a coordinated campaign, involving the Royal Australasin College of Surgeons, road safety and traffic authorities, the Educational Department, school principals' and parents' councils, and the media to increase helmet wearing rates was not based on reliable methods. Both McDermott and Klug were members of the Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australian College of Surgeons that requested the Government of Victoria to introduce bicycle helmet legislation.

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1165.html

Apart from the above, other issues could be mentioned but would entail a higher level of understanding of the data. In short the information would be misleading the public. Colin at cycling (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Colin, none of the facts you have presented above suggest that the RACS acted inappropriately. Yes one can argue that more evidence could have been assembled by the RACS before lobbying for the laws, but one can argue that in retrospect for just about any public policy. The assertion that "[McDermott's and Klug's] recommendation for a coordinated campaign, involving the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, road safety and traffic authorities, the Educational Department, school principals' and parents' councils, and the media to increase helmet wearing rates was not based on reliable methods" is contained in a non-peer reviewed supplementary paper to a poster presentation written by you for a non-scientific general cycling conference, and thus represents only your non-expert opinion. You're welcome to that opinion, but that doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in this WP article. Nor do I think that it is appropriate in this or any other WP article to question the motives, bordering on impugning their integrity, of McDermott, Klug and other researchers and RACS committee members over 30 years ago. I can't see any evidence that they acted inappropriately, but it is in any case a tiny, tiny footnote to history that does not belong in a WP article. Tim C (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not actually suggesting including the appendix details on the Wiki site. The RACS are a group who have and are advocated helmet legislation. Key members selected research data and presented it in a format, cyclists v motorcyclists, that was used to support a political objective. They did not present head injuries from road accidents in general terms. They compared adults, 216 cyclists v 1936 motorcyclists, but did not say how many had sustained head injuries for similar age groups. They did not mention a possible conflict of interest in advocating helmet legislation. The Wiki site already gives space to their position and involvement. The RACS material they publish can be seen to be misleading. Wiki should not be used to promote their misleading helmet law promotional material. I would object to added weight to their view and links to misleading information Colin at cycling (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you explain the "possible conflict of interest" that you're accusing the RACS of possessing? I don't understand how an academy of surgeons has a conflict of interest in helmet legislation. Dsnmi (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that McDermott and Klug had a political objective of introducing legislation and provided research directed towards that objective. Without the political objective the shape and information provided in the research may have taken a different format. It could clearly have compared head injuries by age group but chose to compare total head injuries by users group, thus comparing children/teenagers in large part to adults. It did not take account of levels or hours for each activity, e.g many children cycling for hours. The team of McDermott and Klug were wearing two possible outfit but no mention of possible conflict of interest. Both McDermott and Klug were members of the Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australian College of Surgeons that requested the Government of Victoria to introduce bicycle helmet legislation. Providing a report that appears to have been designed in part to match a political objective.Colin at cycling (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting we reference the issues raised in the paper I've linked to or discuss it in detail. But we should acknowledge the fact that the RACS have supported Mandatory Helmet Legislation. This article is about government legislation and the government relies on bodies such as the RACS when drafting and proposing bills in parliament. It would be remiss of us not to make mention of the fact that an independent national body of respected medical professionals has put forward their views and it would explain why the legislation is still in place. I propose a line such as: "In 2009 the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons reviewed their position on Mandatory Helmet Laws and recommended they be retained and enforced" with a subsequent link to their paper. I don't believe this contradicts the NPOV of this article as it's an unbiased statement of a relevant fact which can be verified by evidence in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Dsnmi (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Tim, do you support the inclusion of a line such as "In 2009 the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons reviewed their position on Mandatory Helmet Laws and recommended they be retained and enforced" in the article? Dsnmi (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that is appropriate. The Australian Injury Prevention Network (which is the peak body for injury researchers in Australia - see http://www.aipn.com.au/index.html) also has a position paper on bicycle helmets - see http://www.aipn.com.au/newsletter.html Tim C (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is a reference for such a review then it would certainly seem appropriate as it ties with the references to RACS in the History section. Is there such a reference? Unfortunately the quoted paper would not seem to be it as it appears to simply stop with a re-telling of the history. Kiwikiped (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Colin (and perhaps others), it is not usually our role to question or analyse the motivation that may underpin the conclusions of reliable sources. I've no idea whether or not the RACS effort was an Australia-wide report but if it was then it is acceptable for use in this article. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The conclusions in the report covered the entire of Australia and were for consideration by the Federal Government along with state governing bodies. I'm personally not convinced by Colin's objection. I understand he has an issue with part of the research undertaken but he's yet to prove to me that the entire College of Surgeons who signed off on the report have the "political objective" or "conflict of interest" he suggests. Dsnmi (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with using this report is that it is not a review at all - it itself makes it clear that they have not reviewed the law due to lack of data. What it is is a restatement of the RACS position on introducing the law in the first place - that is noteworthy and is already noted in the History section as it should be. It is a pity that it isn't a review as it would neatly follow up on the mention of RACS in the History section, but we cannot make it what it isn't. To quote it in a section on the current state of affairs allows the inference they have reviewed the law, and that is not NPOV. One might try suggesting wording along the lines of "RACS reiterated their stance in 2009 but did not base that on a review of the law" to try to mitigate any possibly incorrect inferences - but past experience suggests that such wordings do not find favour, but feel free to suggest one and see if you can gain consensus if you wish. Kiwikiped (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that this article was about Australian law; I thought it was about bicycle helmets in Australia, which just happens to have introduced legislation. I do not understand why we should expect that RACS review the law, nor why any reasonable person should infer that they have done so. They have produced a couple of reports at different times, both of which people on this talk page say were Australia-wide and came out in favour of helmets. What is the big deal here? I could understand there being an issue if they had changed their opinion but not otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You "didn't realise that this article was about Australian law" ?   Really ?   Actually,  there is almost nothing in this article about actual bicycle helmets  (  what colour are they ?   what kind of plastic are they made of ?  ).   The whole article is about the LAW.    You must have read it,  since you have been meddling with it so much.   Actually,  the article is misnamed.  It should be named something like "Bicycle helmet laws in Australia",   because it is the law which is rather unique, notable and controversial,   there is nothing notable about the actual helmets.Eregli bob (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is about bicycle helmets in Australia, which is dominated by the bicycle helmet legislation/law in Australia. It starts with a history of the law and RACS role in that is well documented. The proposal under discussion here is to add a statement to a section on the situation today. RACS position has not changed since they pushed for the law. If someone wants to say that simply, e.g. "RACS has not changed its position", then that is probably fine (but someone might disagree). But as with the discussion in other topics (such as fines), invalid implications/inferences should not be allowed to creep in to push one POV or the other, unintentionally or otherwise. I argue that to use words along the lines of "RACS reviewed" allows and encourages the inference that some 20 years on they assessed the legislation and found it successful. RACS themselves clearly state they did not do that, they would have liked to but did not have the data. I do not believe the proposed wordings avoid that inference and as such are not NPOV. Kiwikiped (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

One point is that they are not providing a balanced account, they are pro legislation and not providing reliable evidence, as the pdf link provided shows. The History sections provides a pro helmet legislation prospective and not a NPOV. I am opposed to adding more pro helmet laws statements or links when it should be providing a NPOV. Colin at cycling (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes they are clearly Pro helmet legislation. This is not a political objective or a conflict of interest. It's the informed opinion of the College of Surgeons and should be noted as such. They don't have to provide evidence to back up their findings they're simply presenting their recommendation in their report. Reporting that the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons recommended the laws be retained and enforced when they considered them in 2009 is not contrary to the NPOV we're trying to obtain in this article it's a simple statement of a verified fact. Not including this information goes contrary to the NPOV as it is clearly censoring relevant information. Dsnmi (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to double check, you are referring to http://www.surgeons.org/media/14490/POS_2009-06-25_Road_Trauma_Cycling_Position_Paper.pdf Colin at cycling (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's correct. Dsnmi (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If any organisation is to be referenced I would agree with Dsnmi that RACS is a good candidate - they are covered in the History section and pushed for the law. The challenge is to do so in an NPOV way for which there is consensus. Referencing any other organisations is a much bigger challenge, both pro-law & anti-law camps will undoubtedly have the views on which to reference and reaching consensus could be challenging - not that need be a reason for folk not to try if they so wish.

The RACS paper being referenced is not hard to follow - it is written for a general audience and therefore no complex statistics etc.; and it is short - just 7 background paragraphs upon which a bulleted position is list is based. The first 4 relate the history, already covered in the previous section of this article. Para 5 covers other safety issues, and para 7 suggests that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. Which leaves para 6, they key one in relation to the issues debated by folk involved here, and its just 3 sentences. RACS simply states that the data is not available to determine trends in cycle safety - no argument the law succeeded or failed. Given they have no data upon which to reevaluate/review their position they move on, in the bulleted list, to simply restate their pre-law position as covered by paras 1-4, and the history section of this article. Others may argue that there is data, but that is moot here - to the best of RACS knowledge (we of course assume good faith) for the first 2 decades of the law there is not, and it is RACS position that is up for inclusion. I'll offer the following summary for your consideration:


 * In 2009 RACS determined that insufficient data was available to determine any trends in cyclist safety; however they re-iterated their pre-law stance covered under "History: lead-up to the laws" above. [ref].

The floor is open. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When you have a small group dealing with say injuries, they view it from a narrow prospective. they do not see it from the risk prospective of per hours activity or in overall society terms. Their statement paper links to misleading claims and reports that have been criticised. They do not provide a peer reviewed document. It is a document supporting a pro helmet legislation position, not an independent view or assessment. Their information already included is not from a NPOV and adding extra links make the Wiki article even more bias towards a pro helmet legislation position than it is already. Information previously on the site provided more of an overall NPOV but currently it fails in this important aspect.Colin at cycling (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Kiwikiped has put forward a good suggestion that I'd approve of except I would add "and recommended the law be adequately enforced" which was a new addition to their stance in 2009. I disagree with Colin who I don't believe has presented any reasonable argument as to why this information should not be included. As I've said many times it doesn't matter that he disagrees with the position of the RACS, or the basis for (one part) of their research or that they haven't adequately explained their position. The point is that the highest medical authority in Australia reiterated (and strengthened) their support for the legislation when they reviewed it in 2009 and we should mention this. Currently the article focuses on academic discussions in the last 20 years and claims no consensus has been reached. This may be the case but we're not presenting the full picture if we ignore the views of the RACS. If Colin can find a recognised Australian Medical authority that doesn't support helmet legislation then he might have a point that the inclusion of the RACS verdict might give unequal weighting but until he does we have to conclude that the opinion of the Australian medical community is weighted towards Helmet legislation and we should acknowledge this in the article. Dsnmi (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The addition suggested by Dsnmi seems entirely reasonable, it is an accurate representation of the RACS position. And Colin at cycling the issue is not whether RACS is NPOV - it clearly is not - but whether as the organisation which pushed for the law, as covered in "History" an NPOV statement of their POV should be included in a "current situation" section. So now we have:
 * In 2009 RACS determined that insufficient data was available to determine any trends in cyclist safety; however they re-iterated their pre-law stance covered under "History: lead-up to the laws" above, and recommended the law be adequately enforced [ref].
 * Up for consensus. Kiwikiped (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. I approve. Dsnmi (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

-- I think this topic is on the cusp of consensus, though of course cannot actually make any edit until the topic "Two Decades On - Redux" below makes it edit.

In WP:BRD we find "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes. If he or she doesn't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer." - So I think at this time we invite Colin at cycling, in the absence of any intervening indications to contrary and once "Two Decades On - Redux" has made its edit, to make the edit; but it is fine if you do not wish to. In the latter case Dsnmi is invited; and if you do not wish to I can do it for you.

So unless other issues come up, and anybody is free to raise such of course, I think this topic can just wait for "Two Decades On - Redux" to conclude. Have a good day folks. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The RACs position statement included details of health that were not published prior to 1990. Accordingly their position could be stated "In 2009 RACS determined that insufficient data was available to determine any trends in cyclist safety; however they re-iterated their pre-law stance covered under "History: lead-up to the laws" above. However, they detail that studies have shown that regular cycling is beneficial to health by reducing heart disease and obesity and that benefits gained are quite likely to outweigh the loss of life through accidents [ref}".Colin at cycling (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Colin at cycling, first I have undone the change you made to something I wrote earlier. Such edits are inappropriate, as with other editors here I assume no ill intent just over enthusiasm. I've also moved your comment down so it comes after "So unless other issues come up", there can be cases to add an out-of-order comment but I don't think this is one of them and suspect it wasn't intentional. Hope that's OK with you.


 * OK, onto your suggested addition. On a purely language note I'd start with "Furthermore..." and not "However..."; apart from that it is an accurate statement (word-for-word after the introducing "However, they detail that"). The issue of the safety of cycling is not off topic and is often mentioned in papers discussing helmets and helmet legislation (the one from CARRS-Q for example). It's also the one significant related issue the existing proposed summary doesn't cover (it's para 7 of the 7 paras). Let's see if you find consensus.


 * If you do find consensus then invite Dsnmi to add the change to the text (after the topic "Two Decades On - Redux" has concluded). Kiwikiped (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My advice would be that you stop thinking of this as an essay writing exercise and take a read of WP:WORDS, WP:PEA and similar guidelines. Juxtaposition etc by use of linking words such as "However" and "Furthermore" are weighted and are dangerous territory. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the suggested addition showing up in the wrong place, not my intention, don't understand what happened there. I think the auto log on may only apply for a period and occasionally it needs attention.Colin at cycling (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When you log in there is a checkbox. If you tick that then you should be good for 30 days, although it does occasionally go a bit doo-lally. For some reason that I've not yet fathomed, it doesn't seem to work properly at allon Android devices - probably something to do with cookies. In any event, when you try to post and are not logged in, your message/edit is not added and instead you get a warning that points out the problem. That always happens because of privacy concerns relating to exposing IP addresses. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

--

Dsnmi, Colin at cycling, et al. The "anchor" in the History section for this addition has been deleted by an edit by Sitush (one sentence was left orphaned by that edit which I cleaned up). Therefore before making this addition I think consensus will need to be sought that it is still relevant (and of course this addition is still pending conclusion of "Two Decades On - Redux"). Kiwikiped (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dsnmi, Colin at cycling, et al. The "anchor" in the History section is now back and the topic "Ongoing debate: after the laws" added, so you can now reconsider your proposed addition if you still wish to. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of no consensus major edit
The topic "History: lead-up to the laws" above started a discussion on changes to the paragraph:


 * A report from the Australian Department of Transport in 1987 examined cycling accident victims and found that "of the unhelmeted cases involving severe head injury, over 40 percent would definitely have had an improved outcome if a substantial bicycle helmet had been worn". It also found that, while "children do have substantial protection from impacts to the head when wearing a bicycle helmet, it is likely that substantial head deformation occurs in a major impact due to the stiffness of the bicycle helmet liner in the Australian Standard bicycle helmet." It recommended changes to the standards, in particular softer foam, which were not implemented.

A more detailed version was first proposed by Colin at cycling which did not find favour, followed by a shorter suggestion for discussion, which removed the debated statistics (too low/too high?), by Richard Keatinge:


 * A report from the Australian Department of Transport in 1987 found that, while "children do have substantial protection from impacts to the head when wearing a bicycle helmet, it is likely that substantial head deformation occurs in a major impact due to the stiffness of the bicycle helmet liner in the Australian Standard bicycle helmet." It recommended changes to the standards, in particular softer foam, which were not implemented.

As topics do this one wandered a bit and then Richard Keatinge sought consensus to simply delete the paragraph. Within minutes Sitush stepped in an unilaterally edited the article deleting the paragraph and two others not even under discussion; this was not clearly a consensus action.

I have now reverted that unilateral edit.

One of the other deletions removed reference to RACS (well almost, the deletion was not clean and both I and AnomieBOT did some cleanup), and organisation which had a central role in the history of Australia's bicycle helmet laws. Unsurprisingly not everyone agreed with RACS, and that was noted as well. There is also another topic above "Suggested addition- The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons", suggested by Dsnmi with contributions from Colin at cycling and others that was working towards a "present day" update on RACS.

I am not saying that the reverted text is good, bad, needs editing, or doesn't, etc. But if people wish to change it they can propose such changes in Talk and reach an agreed text as part of the WP:BRD process - Sitush was Bold, but such edits need discussion. Given that the three paragraphs are not closely tied together it might be easier for anybody proposing changes to start of topic on the particular paragraph to reduce possibilities for confusion. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Or it might be better not to fiddle with something that has been settled for a while. I am reverting you, bearing in mind your acceptance that your change is probably not the right version. You can propose new stuff without needing the old stuff in the article. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted you again. If you want to discuss then see WP:DIFF. You can't reinstate something that has been removed for that length of time without comment. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As all will be aware, Sitush made it clear very quickly invoking the WP:BRD process on one of his edits is unacceptable to him. I tried to ask him to behave and follow the rules, he just started an edit war so I stopped.


 * The issue here is whether the domain-expert editors are concerned over this recent unilateral deletion. I might think it removes information, e.g. about RACS' role, which weakens the article but if the domain-expert editors are happy then that is fine.


 * So unless other editors raise concern and wish the deletion to be reverted and any changes to the text discussed and a consensus reached I will not encourage Sitush to behave appropriately. Kiwikiped (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Helmet laws limiting uptake of bicycle-sharing schemes
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/trial-helmetfree-cycling-zones-says-brisbane-city-council-20130809-2rmrq.html is far from the only reliable coverage of this issue. A question on principle first: would anyone object to the inclusion of two or three sentences? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - for the very reason why this stuff was removed in the first place. Local studies, differing laws etc - you've heard it all before. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a point; there is never likely to be a bike-sharing scheme covering all of Australia and the reports generally limit themselves to a single scheme (each scheme limited not just to single states but to single cities). And I'm aware that POV warriors might raise endless quibbles. As an initial response removing all disputed text was entirely defensible. I also appreciate your continuing efforts in wardening this page. However this issue is obviously notable, and relevant to this article (bicycle helmets IN Australia, not aspects of bicycle helmets that are uniform ACROSS Australia). I suggest the time has come to consider how we can best present it here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge, this topic could be covered in the article, but probably not stating the laws are limiting the uptake of bicycle-sharing schemes. I suggest the following seems generally accepted:
 * There is increasing interest in bicycle-sharing worldwide as Governments are convinced of the benefits of active transport
 * The schemes in Australia have performed below that typical elsewhere
 * The low performance is connected in some way to bicycle helmet requirements
 * It is the "in some way" where opinion diverges, the ones I've noted (there are undoubtedly others) are broadly:
 * The schemes are at fault: The traditional bicycle-share model is not designed for areas with helmet legislation, and if possible the model needs to be updated to work within such an environment. An example of this is Vancouver where helmets will be provided with the bikes.
 * The helmet laws are at fault: Bicycle-shared and helmet legislation are incompatible, you can have one or the other - and you pick based on your assessment of the benefits. The examples quoted here are Mexico and Israel both of which removed helmet legislation in favour of bike-share.
 * Neither are at fault: While helmet legislation may reduce participation in bike-share the overall benefit is positive so there is no problem provided the schemes are financially viable.
 * The question is where does Australia fall? Your source comes under bullet 5. Are 4, 6 or others being argued (appropriate sources required of course) in Australia about Australia? If so they would need to be mentioned.
 * Why not draft a few sentences along with sources for discussion here and see what the other domain-experts think? Kiwikiped (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The helmet laws came first. Only an idiot would introduce a bicycle share scheme modelled on places without helmet laws in a place WITH helmet laws. All that the lack of success of such schemes proves is the lack of common sense among those introducing the schemes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This might be a defensible point of view but I think we need something more encyclopaedic. What about something on the lines of:

"Shared bicycles in Brisbane and Melbourne are used about ten times less than is typical in areas without compulsory helmet laws. Many other factors may be relevant. One response has been to improve the availability of helmets to users of bicycle-sharing schemes. "

Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. Doesn't address the idiocy of introducing the bike share schemes when the helmet laws were already in place. It's no bloody mystery why they didn't work. We don't have to beat about the bush. This is not a comment on the right or wrong of the helmet laws. It's a criticism of introducing bike share schemes when the helmet laws were already in place. And lines like "Many other factors may be relevant" are speculative, and neither help nor belong in our articles. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "Many other factors" are indeed speculative, but there are in fact many other differences between cities/schemes, the idea is referenced, and NPOV does require some mention. The low uptake of bike sharing has indeed been used as an adverse comment on the helmet laws, but here we should probably stick to the basic facts. What words would you suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A valid statement would be to say "Because of the helmet wearing laws in Australia, bike sharing schemes similar to those where no helmet wearing laws existed could not work effectively." HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It goes beyond our sources and beyond the defensible. What if, to name one possibility, each hire were to come with a nice clean helmet, new or from your friendly automated helmet sanitizing machine? What if that or some other change were to bring Australian figures into the range for other bike share schemes? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Then it would probably work, and no longer be a "bike sharing scheme similar to those where no helmet wearing laws existed". You're talking apples and oranges. HiLo48 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I feel that my wording is the best suggested so far. Can we have at least one other opinion? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Richard Keatinge, well the "many other" implies the laws are relevant, which gets us into correlation vs. causation surely? Maybe it would be better as "Various factors may be responsible [refs]". Your "one response" references supplying helmets and not your original source which suggests waiving the requirement, doing this does not seem very NPOV.
 * HiLo48, I'd be careful labelling the authorities as "idiots" for introducing bike-share as it raises the question of what else idiotic they've done... and that is not too healthy on this Talk page ;-)
 * So how about this variation on Richard's words?
 * Bicycle helmets and public bike share
 * Shared bicycles in Brisbane and Melbourne are used about ten times less than is typical in areas without compulsory helmet laws.[1] Various factors may be responsible.[2][3] One response has been to improve the availability of helmets to users of bicycle-sharing schemes[4], while Brisbane City Council has suggested trialling helmet-free zones[5].
 * [1] Helmet law hurting shared bike scheme. Clay Lucas. The Age, Victoria. November 29, 2010. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helmet-law-hurting-shared-bike-scheme-20101128-18cf2.html#ixzz2bl3faISh
 * [2] http://theconversation.com/fixing-australian-bike-share-goes-beyond-helmet-laws-10229 Fixing Australian bike share goes beyond helmet laws. Elliott Fishman. The Conversation 25 November 2012, 7.05pm GMT
 * [3] Alan Davies. Why does bikeshare work in New York but not in Australia? The Urbanist Jun 03, 2013 8:08AM http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/06/03/why-does-bikeshare-work-in-new-york-but-not-in-australia/
 * [4] Is the law on helmets why bikeshare is failing? Alan Davies. The Urbanist Feb 12, 2012 5:39PM http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/02/12/is-the-helmet-law-why-bikeshare-is-failing-in-australian-cities/
 * [5] http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/trial-helmetfree-cycling-zones-says-brisbane-city-council-20130809-2rmrq.html
 * Kiwikiped (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A definite improvement, thanks. Any further comments or shall I insert? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge, I think you've waited an appropriate amount of time without any objections. Go make your edit, add the section after "Ongoing Debate" maybe? Kiwikiped (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF? This is completely irrelevant coatracking. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, what is blindingly obvious to me here is that none of you pov-pushing, conflicted interest people are learning a thing here about how to use Wikipedia. Perhaps you would all be better off returning to the websites of your various interest groups. I am appalled at what has been going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bicycle helmets in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515215047/http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARRFeb12.pdf to http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARRFeb12.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424061711/http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au:80/queensland/bike-helmet-laws-will-change-to-allow-religious-exemptions-20130423-2ibaq.html to http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bike-helmet-laws-will-change-to-allow-religious-exemptions-20130423-2ibaq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bicycle helmets in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110220223401/http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/974624 to http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/974624
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bike-helmet-laws-will-change-to-allow-religious-exemptions-20130423-2ibaq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328232404/http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferRiders/BikeRiders/WearingABicycleHelmet.htm to http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferRiders/BikeRiders/WearingABicycleHelmet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)